I wonder that they so intent on sayiong it was 15 deg hotter etc but when were these edm last cal done ?

No.

Andrew won’t be satisfied - and I won’t be getting value for money - unless Andrew has the opportunity to ask questions of, and point out all the flaws in the data presented by, the presenters. It may be that he is successfull, in which case I will have learned something new and important.

Being “on the step” was just another ubiquitous pilot’s OWT. Very rare these days, but there’s the occasional outbreak. A bit like measles...

So information presented online isn't as valid as that presented in a seminar format? Online content from universities and Ted talks (and APS)are a complete waste of time?

So what would andrewr not understand about what you are talking about from the online content?:=

How can I be mistaken?:confused:
I am asking a question!:ugh:

The online content has been presented on PPRuNe and Andrew doesn’t accept it.

You and he seem to take the view that too many others in aviation do: It’s up to someone else to spend their time and money to cure you of your ignorance.

Andrew take the course and ask lots of questions - it will certainly be of great benefit for you.


It is also admirable of the other member to pay the course cost.


But it is not the be all and end all of engine operation, but certainly a tool you can use.

No, I do not know. Elucidate please.

And Aussie Bob talked about arrogance! If you think that what you have put on this thread is equivalent to online content then you are more arrogant than even AB can imagine!


You were the one that made the grand and magnanimous offer of paying for andrewr to attend an APS seminar when it was presented in Australia. According to their website they have no seminars on offer in the States or here. They will however take your money and put your name on a list to assess if there is sufficient interest! Their website is offering an online equivalent yet you are now saying that it wouldn't satisfy andrewr ( have you asked him?) and its content is on Pprune. The more I see posted on this thread the more I agree with those who suggest that APS is equivalent to a cult.

On the attached chart, the CHT does not peak at 25 degrees C ROP.

Eddie

You will almost certainly be surprised to learn that it wasn’t to make the engines more reliable.

Which of these IO520s at sea level on an ISA day, RPM set to 2,700, mixture set to full rich and throttle set to maximum will deliver more power:

1. The one with magneto to engine advance set to 20 degrees.

2. The one with magneto to engine advance set to 22 degrees.

I didn’t say “this thread”.

Your new found prejudice means you haven’t been keeping up with the very, very long and multiple threads on this subject, in which andrewr has been an active contributor.

Are you sure you have your units of measurement correct? Sure?

And you do know what the word “around” means, don’t you?

What aircraft operate at sea level?

"Sure" and "Really sure"


Do I need to bold it?

Lead Balloon, you say previously that your LOP operation is backed up with science, and a test cell. In the chart I provided, at any mixture setting richer than peak EGT, the CHT reduces. Correct, or not.

Sorry take it back it is 22 degrees on the 520 - as said not current


http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/msb94-8d.pdf

No prejudice just checking what the APS website states. I don't imagine that the multiple threads are very different to this one, this is already up to page 8. andrewr is also not the only APS sceptic, of note the other sceptics seem to be engineers who have probably had a lot more experience dealing with engines than you have. If the complete online content from APS is on pprune then I suggest that someone owes APS $375 plus whatever costs a good lawyer can extract for plagiarism and the theft of intellectual property, I understand the Yanks are big on that at the moment. I also note that those in the pro-APS camp don't want to make any comment on the bio's that have been posted. Like I have stated I haven't flown piston engine aircraft for a long time and have no opinion on the merits of LOP and ROP but I do know BS when I see it and it is usually accompanied by denigration of those offering a difference of opinion.

tsi540: Not correct.

If you enrich the mixture from peak EGT, the CHT will increase - repeat increase - until the mixture is about 25C rich of peak. After that, enriching the mixture will result in a decrease in CHT.

I don’t know what picture you’re trying to post, but if it has CHT and EGT curves that peak at the same point (e.g. like those in the EDM manuals) they are bull****. All you need to do is plot EGT against CHT in a real aircraft in the real world on a real flight. (I’m always struck by the irony of my love and dependence of the EDM in my aircraft but contempt for some of the OWT in the EDM manuals, which OWTs have been proved as OWTs as a consequence of measurements on the EDM...)

What you imagine is not correct. There are many more threads of substantially greater length than this one.

“Probably” have more experience? You do a lot of speculation, Lookleft.

Let’s make it easy:

I have no clue what I’m talking about and nobody should take seriously anything I say.

Just quote the above in any thread in which I post and you can relax and get on with whatever it is that you do.